Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

ljaszcza writes "Daily Tech brings us a story about Sony's run-in with the Mexican police. (Billboard picked up the story as well.) It seems that they raided Sony's offices and seized 6,397 music CDs after a protest from the artist, Alejandro Fernandez. Fernandez had signed a seven-album deal with Sony Music; he completed that commitment and then left for Universal. During the time with Sony, he recorded other songs that did not make it into the agreed-upon seven albums. Sony Music took it upon themselves to collect that material and release it as an eighth album. Fernandez claims that he fulfilled his contract with Sony, and residual material belongs to him. Hmm. Precedent from the Jammie Thomas infringement and distribution case gives us $80K per song. Sony vs. Joel Tenenbaum gives $22.5K per song. So 6,397 CDs at an average of 8 songs/CD is 51,176 infringing songs, with (IMHO) intent to distribute. The damages to Fernandez should be $1,151,460,000 using the Tenenbaum precedent or $4,094,080,000 using the Thomas precedent. Seems very straightforward to me."

Why does the summary talk about "Precedent from the Jammie Thomas" when this case is in Mexico, while Jammie Thomas was in USA? Precedent's in USA aren't precedents everywhere (how many times this shit has to be told to americans?) and most of other countries actually have sane amount of compensations in copyright infringement cases, unlike USA.

Why does the summary talk about "Precedent from the Jammie Thomas" when this case is in Mexico, while Jammie Thomas was in USA? Precedent's in USA aren't precedents everywhere (how many times this shit has to be told to americans?) and most of other countries actually have sane amount of compensations in copyright infringement cases, unlike USA.

RIAA sister organizations around the world actually point to USA and screams "Be more like them!" when trying to roughshod legislation through... so it only seems fair.

RIAA sister organizations around the world actually point to USA and screams "Be more like them!"

They can scream all they like they are still only a lobby group and as yet don't have the power to pass legislation in there home countries so the GP is right in pointing out the difference between US law and that in other countries. Suffice to say this may change in due course when Corporatism becomes so embedded globally that industry pressure groups are the dudes signing off on legislation . . . ho hum . . .

We all know that Sony will wiggle out of it. Just the same as when the U.S. sued the record-companies for "forming an illegal cartel" and price-fixing CDs from 1990 onward. Although the U.S. could have won that case, the record companies negotiated a deal where they simply returned ~$20 to everyone who asked for a refund. I bet Sony will also weasel a way such that it costs them virtually nothing.

Corporations have power to make the government decide in their favor. I'm about to drive to JCPenney and demand to know "why did I never receive the 50 dollar mail-in rebate promised when I bought this appliance?" I already know the answer I will receive is "too bad, there's nothing we can do about it," and I'll never see that 50 dollars. Technically that's called illegal advertising of the price (they advertise 150 in the newspaper but I paid 200) and a criminal offense.

In reality a call to the California AG won't get me anywhere because the AG is bought-and-paid-for by the corporate dollars who put him in office. JCPenney, Sony, et cetera get away with this stuff because THEY own the governments of New York, United States, Mexico, et cetera.

Fsck that. I *never* consider the 'price after rebate' to be the price. I consider the 'amount of cash I have to hand to the clerk to carry it out of the store' to be the price of an item.

Why should I loan some retailer $50 of my money, at 0% interest, and then have to jump through hoops to get it back (including sending original copies of documents (receipt) that if *they* lose or claim they never got, then I no longer have the original to prove I have a valid claim)? If the goddamn price is $150, then you accept my $150, and *you* (retailer) fark around getting the other $50 from the manufacturer. If I have to give you $200 to get it out of the store, then as far as I'm concerned, the price is $200.

So "$175" (out the door, no hoop-jumping) is a better price than"$150 ('after $50 rebate')"

Also, to note, if you fail to receive your rebate and have copies of all documents you sent in, you can also file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau.

I accidentally overpaid Comcast once. They got the payment in 2 days, cashed, and I couldn't stop payment realizing it within half a day of it being sent. I had called and called Comcast saying "Refund me, when will it arrive back?" 2 months pass and, while I'm sure the timing is 'coincidental', a day or two after I filed a complaint with the BBB, I bo

You need a system like ours. Here, we pay for political ads with tax money. While this may seem a bit idiotic (hey, pay to get pestered with ads?), the alternative is politicians selling out to corporations for ad money.

That, in turn, is tightly regulated here and mostly outright illegal with steep fines and a certain ejection from whatever seat you got elected into.

That, of course, makes it quite easy for the parties in power to keep out any new comers.

Not that the US system makes starting a new party feasible. They just use different techniques.

It *might* be a trade-off worth making. But lots of parties and Condorcet or Instant-Runoff voting would seem to be a better solution. Also make lying in a campaign speech a criminal offense. (That one's tricky, though. It could so easily be misused. Maybe it isn't worth the danger.)

Fair? We're talking copyright here, and you waltz in with some fairy-tale concept...

Trying to explain the concept of "fair" to a copyright lawyer is like explaining "deadlines" to a programmer. They may understand the theory, but they usually cringe at the idea and think "hell, that may be nice for someone else but it sure can't apply to me!"

Trying to explain the concept of "fair" to a copyright lawyer is like explaining "deadlines" to a programmer. They may understand the theory, but they usually cringe at the idea and think "hell, that may be nice for someone else but it sure can't apply to me!"

Programmers will understand "deadlines" when customers/clients/bosses understand "requirements freeze". And copyright lawyers _understand_ "fair" just fine, but they don't see what's in it for them.

I think the point was that Sony corp. made an official public statement by about what they feel a stolen song is worth, and filed it in court. Even if the case verdict isn't a legal precedent, surely the researched market analysis filed in a foreign court can still be cited as a fair assessment that is endorsed by Sony. (Ok, IANAL, and the case in the U.S.A. was probably some legally-independent entity, completely separate from the Sony-owned company in this case, but it still has to count for something.)

The fact that the police raided Sony is enough to convince me that this will not be like the USA. At least Mexico gives a shit about their artists as individuals. The suit wasn't be a Mexican RIAA but by the artist himself.

"Sony corp. made an official public statement by about what they feel a stolen song is worth"

No, they never did that. They weasel out of such a statement. They just point out how much the legislation allows them. If they made such a statement the damange could be substantiated and would be more realistic ( like 6 dollar per number instead of a value thousends times higher)

I think the point was that Sony corp. made an official public statement by about what they feel a stolen song is worth, and filed it in court. Even if the case verdict isn't a legal precedent, surely the researched market analysis filed in a foreign court can still be cited as a fair assessment that is endorsed by Sony. (Ok, IANAL, and the case in the U.S.A. was probably some legally-independent entity, completely separate from the Sony-owned company in this case, but it still has to count for something.)

On a side note, I think it's totally awesome that Sony has given us such a great example of what the difference is between infringement and theft.:D

Well, sometimes they are. Just as American judges can look to foreign rulings when there's little local precedent, foreign judges will often look to see what's been done in America. Foreign precedents aren't generally binding, except in the case of certain treaties, but they may be used. I agree that the summary overstates the case - it's fun to do the math based off American awards but it shouldn't imply that Mexican courts are bound to it - but use of foreign precedents is not, uh, unprecedented. I doubt

The answer to your question is very simple:The USA is insisting that other nations, to continue to trade with the USA, must comply with US copyright and IP laws.As a Canadian, we see this tactic engaged regularly.By logical extension, if other nations ( especially ones in the North American Free Trade Association, AKA "NAFTA")are to be compliant, then the penalties for breach and theft need to be similar.Hence the comparisons to the cases where specific fees per song were calculated.

One point regarding Jammie Thomas. She actually had 2500 illegally obtained tracks on her PC, but was only prosecuted for a handful of them so the $K22.5 I often see bandied around isn't strictly accurate.

Sony are clearly in the wrong here however. Unless the contracts says music created during those recording sessions, not the songs that reached the final albums. As we haven't seen the contracts I wouldn't like to speculate.

I don't know anything about Mexican copyright law, but it appears that Sony itself is trying to apply US copyright law to a Mexican citizen in Mexico, which is weird because Sony is a Japanese company.

In the US, phonorecords are "works for hire". If it's the same in Mexico, Sony has a point.

Holy shit, I just defended Sony*. Satan asked for a sweater.

* I was a victim of XCP. If I did to them what they did to me, I'd be in prison.

Foreign judgments aren't irrelevant, but they're not precedent either. A precedent (despite what a poster above thinks) is a ruling by a higher court in the same jurisdiction. A foreign judgment might be followed, but it would followed as a persuasive judgment, not as a precedent. The difference is that a judge has to follow precedent, but may follow a persuasive decision.

Generally speaking, only high courts feel comfortable adopting the decisions of other countries, especially if those decisions conflict

If they were to be included in a further lawsuit (which requires the COPYRIGHT HOLDER to start a case, hence not included in this lawsuit), then 80k per track could be put forward as equitable under case law.

One point regarding Jammie Thomas. She actually had 2500 illegally obtained tracks on her PC, but was only prosecuted for a handful of them so the $K22.5 I often see bandied around isn't strictly accurate.

It doesn't matter what she had on her PC - if she wasn't prosecuted for it, it didn't, or at the very least shouldn't have counted towards the reparations she has to pay. Otherwise an accuser could go to court on a single charge they can prove and tack on any number of charges they haven't even tried to prove, and have a person sentenced for all the charges.

Well, it doesn't actually matter that they're employees. Under US law (which we're apparently pretending applies in Mexico), any Work For Hire is generally considered the property of the party that did the hiring. The definition of a Work for Hire from the Copyright Act:

Works Made for Hire. -- (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. (17 U.S.C. sec 101)

Of course it's an open question whether their contract said that their work was a work for hire, but it seems likely to me. This is generally how labels work. (That's why the label sues you for infringement, not the artist.)

Well, I think we're both half right. Recording contracts supposedly often include language to this effect: "artists works will be considered works for hire, unless the courts don't think the works meet the criteria. In that case, the artist assigns his rights to the label."

Sometimes the labels have made the argument that recordings are collective works (and thus, for hire) depending on who hired the studio, producers, engineers, backup singers, extra band members, etc. But it's also true that these days its

According to what I've read, one of the nasty parts of multi-album recording contracts is that the contract gives the record company final approval about what can get put on an album. The idea that they still hold any rights beyond the contract for songs they didn't select for album publication seems to do a disservice to this particular agreement.

Except for record contracts are NOT employment contracts. The bands are not employed by the record companies, the contracts are usually for the set number of albums. By standard recording contracts, the artist in this instance is the one who's most likely right.

It's never that simple. Often (not every time...depends on how aggressive you were in negotiation, and how good your lawyer was), the contract will include clauses that say that the label owns everything you record until "x" number of albums are released, and some even say that the label gets to decide which songs are good enough for an album (meaning, if you want to leave, they can keep you tied up by saying none of your stuff is "good enough").

Exactly. At best, Sony loaned money to the artist to cover studio time until the albums were produced. That is one of the ways in which the labels screw the artists.

They say "We'll help you get your music going by providing everything! All you have to do is record it."

They neglect to mention that the contracts usually state that the artist will not see a penny until all investments in the artists venture are met, such as studio recording costs, advertising, promotional materials, etc.

Did Sony provide facilities for recording the disputed songs?
Still, what's in the contract is binding...

No. Sony simply provides the artist a loan -- Sony pays all the cost of producing the album up front, but all of the costs must be recouped through album sales before the artist sees any income. Even after that, Sony will still take the vast majority of the profits (usually around 80% if you are lucky), which is why I have an aneurysm every time I hear the RIAA say they are doing something "for the artists".

As ownership of the tracks -- it is all about what is in the contract. I have a sneaking suspicion that Sony lawyers have some sort of loophole written into the contract to protect them from liability in this matter, being the bottom-feeding vermin that they are.

Once again this persistent MYTH that the labels actually providethe artists with anything more than what amounts to a big bankloan rears it's ugly head. Artists pay for EVERYTHING. What punyroyalties they do get when the work sells has to be used to payback any production costs.

This is how a multi-platinum recording can leave the band in debt to the label.

I'd hope the artist and his lawyers would make sure no claus like that existed in the contract before proceding with the lawsuit... IANAL and didn't even sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night yet know enough to check for that first.

I had a friend who took a college course on record label contracts. His prof said that there was no way on earth a sane lawyer would recommend that a band sign the standard record deal. Of course, bands don't hire lawyers to vet them, and the record companies all use the same basic contract, so the bands often don't even realize they have a choice. Up until this proud new digital era, the bands didn't have a choice, if they wanted to make it big.

Which brings up something I have always though was stupid: Why didn't we just roll the tanks and take the damned thing? here me out, as it makes sense. Guarding the border is damned near impossible, as the thing is fricking huge, but now look at the border between Mexico and South America, see how tiny that thing is? It would be trivial to guard that. To me it would make a hell of a lot more sense to take that than wasting our time in rough ass countries in the Middle East.

True. Multiply the figures by a factor of between 2 and 10 to match the usual ratio of "individual fine" and "company fine" for violations of civil laws. Oh look, they're still buggered. Happy days!:)

As another commenter pointed out, whatever precedent they set by weaselling out of this charge will just make it easier for the next person defending themselves against copyright infringement charges in Mexico or wherever this gets fought out. Ah, they'll probably just settle though, which would be the saf

Sorry, but you fail. The big companies may be evil, but they aren't stupid. You may only count the 8 songs once. Scratch that. As those song were distributed as one unit, so you can make a good argument for a total count of 1 infringement.

The reason for the $150,000 number in the law was exactly because it was aimed against large scale infringement like the one we are talking about here, but that has just made it even more effective (cruel and unjust) against small scale distributed infringment.

Counting the 8 songs as 8 units seems appropriate, since that is the precedent from other file sharing cases. Jammie Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum did not get to argue that their shared songs should be counted as a smaller number of albums.

Which leaves us with $80K per song (Thomas) times 8 or $22.5K per song (Tenenbaum) times 8. That is $640K or $180K. Looks like appropriate damages because this is large scale infringement as you wrote. In the Thomas and Tenenbaum cases I consider it excessive.

This said, Mexican law counts here and the sums may be much lower. Unless Sony also distributed that CD in the US as well, then Fernandez might want to sue in the US too;-)

If you have a contract to produce a certain number of albums, but you also sign over ownership of your works during the contract, then the songs you produce during your contract even if they don't make it to an album belong to Sony (or whoever).

IANAL and it depends on the fine print, but there's a good chance this guy is boned.

IANAL, but have studied how record companies and recording contracts generally work. Yes, the only thing Sony would have to pay him is royalties on the copies they sold. When you sign a recording contract, you are signing over the publishing rights to anything you record while under contract, whether or not it gets published. The record company owns the recorded work as well as the right to publish the song as long as Sony filed the copyright, which they probably did, even on the stuff they didn't release.

Usually whoever pays the costs of the studio owns the mechanical copyright. Although what annoys me about that line of reasoning is that record companies reclaim the recording costs from the artists share of the profit, and so should forfeit any ownership.

Usually whoever pays the costs of the studio owns the mechanical copyright.
Although what annoys me about that line of reasoning is that record companies reclaim the recording costs from the artists share of the profit, and so should forfeit any ownership.

No recording company gives away its recording studio time. They would have billed him for it when it came time to calculate his proceeds from the record sales. Part of the "screw the artist" business model.

While I think ljaszcza's claim of precedent is flimsy, at best, I do hope that Sony is absolutely smashed in court over this. This is _commercial_ piracy. This is piracy-for-profit. If non-commercial piracy between individuals carries penalties of tens-of-thousands of dollars per song then commercial piracy damn well carry a significantly heftier fine. After all, _THIS_ is the sort of thing that copyright law is intended to protect against - someone making money off of someone else's work without their permission. _THIS_ is what the law is supposed to protect against. With a hint of luck, the law will actually do something about it rather than look the other way.

Wouldn't it be nice if the group involved in drafting ACTA were made aware of this. After all, I'm sure Sony has been involved in "suggesting" elements of the ACTA proposal so I'm sure any punishments they've suggested they would be comfortable with paying...

I doubt that the precedents set in the mentioned cases can be applied to this case. After all, Sony did not only copy the songs for personal use, they strived to sell them for a profit. In all "copyright piracy" cases I've read about, professional copyright violators were punished in a harshlier way (which seems appropriate).

Also, let's not forget how bad commercial piracy is:

Criminal IPR Infringement
Commercial scale infringement is the crime
of choice for many criminal syndicates,
gangs, and organizations, including those
in China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia,
Nigeria, Thailand, Philippines, South Korea
and the USA.
Commercial copyright piracy/trademark
counterfeiting is a funding source for
terrorist groups, like the IRA, Hezbollah,
GIA Islamic Network, and Al Qaeda.
(from: http://www.aseansec.org/21385-9.pdf [google.com])

He completed the contract, and assuming there were no statements indicating any unused material reverted in ownership to Sony, then they (Sony) are in some serious trouble. Having used their weight to press for massive charges with the RIAA over infringement, they now must pay the piper for their own actions--you simply cannot have it both ways; or if I can be allowed to channel Johnnie Cochran for a moment, "If they stole his shit, you cannot acquit!" Loos to me Sony will be forced to pony up. Don't you lo

Sony says they are totally authorized and in their view, I suppose they are right.

After all, it is a strict and limited group of people who controls copyrighted material (and indeed, copyrights in general) and Sony is a proud member of the oligarchy. And what they say is authorized must be authorized since they are the ones who usually determine what is and isn't authorized.

There is nothing about that in TFA.Besides, raids on suspected copyright infringers are nothing new. There have been similar raids on The Pirate Bay, and Sony certainly operates on a comparable scale. That is not some school kid who shares a few albums on his computer.

If the allegations are true, this is a case of commercial copyright infringement. A rather big fish, certainly bigger than Tenenbaum or Thomas.

Besides, raids on suspected copyright infringers are nothing new. There have been similar raids on The Pirate Bay, and Sony certainly operates on a comparable scale. That is not some school kid who shares a few albums on his computer.

The Big Corp in media always tell us how they fight non-profit copyright infringement to help the artists, and here Sony may have been caught infringing an artist's copyright with intent to profit from it. This makes Sony's action more wrong than that of Jammie Thomas et al. on two levels: legally (because it is for profit) and morally (they screwed over the person they claimed to protect and support).